Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Leapin' lizard, crouching kitty.

re: Leapin' lizard, crouching kitty.
TB — (archived)

I've studied the problem myself, and assuming the lust for Something for Nothing overwhelms this country and nationalized health care is inevitable, I came to a couple of conclusions:

First, the only way to even have a chance to avoid major financial upheaval is to create a system largely financed by taxes on businesses, i.e. those currently paying for most of the private health insurance.

With luck, the financials on the businesses will be at least close to a wash, although somebody needs to do the spreadsheets.

If you try to do single-payer on payroll taxes paid by employees, the people will burn Washington to the ground. I have done some of the numbers on this. They aren't pretty. And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for businesses to pass their health premium savings down to the employees.

Second, if we do this we are not going to have as good a health care system as we do now. If you are of the philosophy that mediocre for everyone is better than very good for most and very poor for a few, this will not be a problem. But it is inevitable. The price and wage controls that are inherent in a system divorced from market forces (assuming we avoid rationing) will damp down a lot of innovation and quality.

Most health care innovations come from the U.S., or from foreign outfits whose major market is the U.S. Look up the market statements from some big foreign pharmaceutical companies. Hint: They aren't getting rich off Canada or France.

Social Security provides a reliable poverty income for the elderly who have no other resources. This is far better than nothing, but it's still a poverty income. Health Security will wind up the same way. You will have people get the basics they need, but the miracles in medicine we've come to expect are going to be fewer and farther between.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (80 posts)